Uccisore wrote:Voted no. NATO isn't an economic agreement, it's a military alliance. "Deadly enemies" is a bit of poetic wording to make it appear as though economic issues and military issues are combined when they are not. Economic rivals can be military allies.

I second that.

World is too complex now for having single dimensional agreements. Different countries use to have different relations on different issues. They do not necessarily agree or disagree on all issues.

Secondly, the rivalry between US and EU is more in the mind of the people rather than those who have a actual say on the issues. People's opinion does not matter much on that level.

Where does that problem play into this scenario? Bombing Germany? As a payback? But would not a cesessed Germany factor this in? And how about the political muscle of the Greens? This smells of reticence .

[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance

In answer to your prayersincere, the centre ofyour circle here,i stand ; and , withouttaking thought,-i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-asyou be menThis: Re-Creation. With abow,Then, your obedient

Orb wrote:Where does that problem play into this scenario? Bombing Germany? As a payback? But would not a cesessed Germany factor this in? And how about the political muscle of the Greens? This smells of reticence .

The United State's economy has been in the shitter since 2007.

Everybody around the world can't dump the petrodollar fast enough.

The United States Dollar is heavily tied to the Euro and the Japanese Yen.

If anything happens to either currency it will have a negative impact on the United States Dollar and economy.

The United States is a desperate and dying empire. It will do anything to preserve itself where all cards are on the table.

Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

You said that the "European Union and central bank is the United States bitch", and Nietzsche said that the state is the coldest of all cold monsters. ("Staat heisst das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, "Also sprach Zarathustra", 1883, S. 57). Can monsters have bitches?

The Fed is even one of the main monsters, a private one and very schizophrenic.

You said that the "NATO is the United States lapdog" and I add: the lapdog is a very aggressive one and very schizophrenic.

After World War II they were already talking about devising the European Union in 1949.

Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn't work well. So it has to be reformed - SOON - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?

LaughingMan wrote:As usual most people ignore or are too ignorant of the real players in control of things.

The European central bank just like the Japanese one takes its orders from the United States Federal Reserve.

And the Federal Reserve is a private bank. The European Central Bank (in Frankfurt) is a bank of the European Union. So in this case we have one main monster (Fed) and two monsters (EU and ECB) like states. And they lie always: "I, the state, am the people." ("Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.« - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57).

Uccisore wrote:Voted no. NATO isn't an economic agreement, it's a military alliance. "Deadly enemies" is a bit of poetic wording to make it appear as though economic issues and military issues are combined when they are not. Economic rivals can be military allies.

I second that.

World is too complex now for having single dimensional agreements. Different countries use to have different relations on different issues. They do not necessarily agree or disagree on all issues.

Secondly, the rivalry between US and EU is more in the mind of the people rather than those who have a actual say on the issues. People's opinion does not matter much on that level.

with love,sanjay

Uccisore and Zinnat are changing words in that way that my thesis is not my thesis anymore because I didn't say that the EU and the US are "rivals" but I said that they are economical enemies (and that is something different, isn't it?). And furthermore: Germany and the US (as well as 99% of the world) are military enemies because there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?). This all is absolutely schizophrenic but true.The historical facts do not lie. Humans lie.

Orb wrote:Where does that problem play into this scenario? Bombing Germany? As a payback? But would not a cesessed Germany factor this in? And how about the political muscle of the Greens? This smells of reticence .

Orb wrote:Where does that problem play into this scenario? Bombing Germany? As a payback? But would not a cesessed Germany factor this in? And how about the political muscle of the Greens? This smells of reticence .

The United State's economy has been in the shitter since 2007.

Everybody around the world can't dump the petrodollar fast enough.

The United States Dollar is heavily tied to the Euro and the Japanese Yen.

If anything happens to either currency it will have a negative impact on the United States Dollar and economy.

The United States is a desperate and dying empire. It will do anything to preserve itself where all cards are on the table.

Economy and military belong more together than Uccisore, Zinnat, and others believe.

Economy and military are very closely connected with each other. Almost all wars have their causes in economy.

And remember, folks: My thesis in my op is not that I prefer the end of the NATO or that this or that country or even many more countries should leave the NATO. No. My thesis in my op is a logical one: If the NATO partners are enemies, then the NATO is either useless, or very schizophrenic, or both; so one of the consequences must be the end of the NATO. My thesis in my op says nothing about my opinion.

My opinion is that the occidental culture needs something like a military alliance but not an aggressive one like the NATO. My opinion is not yet an ingredient of my thesis in my op. If it were one, then I could not so easily speak about the end of the NATO as a consequence but would suggest to reform the NATO in order to prevent the end of the NATO.

Last edited by Arminius on Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

We need a slight correction here, about when the European Union was planned. Actually long before the world wars, not much after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire was an affair which lasted 500 years , under various municipalities. Mainly Germany, Austria , then the Austro Hungarian Empire under the the Hapsburgs. The Hohenzallers did not play into the political affairs of reorganization of post Napoleon times, it was an Austrian, Metternich, who drew the future geopolitical lines . The Eorope of the Third Reich was supposed to restructure the Holy Roman Empire under a Germanic authority. The same goes on nowedays with the Ottoman recursion, for a re attainment of power motives along the lines of aaral Unity. That Empire, also has not whizzed away in the 100 years since it's demise post WW1. the same goes for Israel, claiming Palastine and vica versa. Even Mexico has it freshly in mind that California and New Mexico were previously under their simon, not to speak of the disenfranchised native Americans. if the US was a weak third world country, I am sure these issues would be insisted upon to seek a reactionary revision of borders. In case of Hungary,mthe treaty of Trianon, which left her minus most of the other surrounding countries of Chech, Slovak, Romanian and other territories including thenAdriatic port of Fiume, (now part of Italy), there are traces of U forgiveness, reminiscent to Germany's anger about the Ruhr. Bounderies are issues which exist with Mainland China and Japan,mregarding some coastal islands, so the list goes on and on. Territorial integrity is only as viable, as the power to enforce boundaries can guarantee them. it issue now worldwide is particularly this, and this is what put Putin in the hot seat, because it tread on geopolitically ultra sensitive nerves.

[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance

In answer to your prayersincere, the centre ofyour circle here,i stand ; and , withouttaking thought,-i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-asyou be menThis: Re-Creation. With abow,Then, your obedient

Orb wrote:We need a slight correction here, about when the European Union was planned. Actually long before the world wars, not much after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire was an affair which lasted 500 years , under various municipalities. Mainly Germany, Austria , then the Austro Hungarian Empire under the the Hapsburgs. The Hohenzallers did not play into the political affairs of reorganization of post Napoleon times, it was an Austrian, Metternich, who drew the future geopolitical lines . The Eorope of the Third Reich was supposed to restructure the Holy Roman Empire under a Germanic authority. The same goes on nowedays with the Ottoman recursion, for a re attainment of power motives along the lines of aaral Unity. That Empire, also has not whizzed away in the 100 years since it's demise post WW1. the same goes for Israel, claiming Palastine and vica versa. Even Mexico has it freshly in mind that California and New Mexico were previously under their simon, not to speak of the disenfranchised native Americans. if the US was a weak third world country, I am sure these issues would be insisted upon to seek a reactionary revision of borders. In case of Hungary,mthe treaty of Trianon, which left her minus most of the other surrounding countries of Chech, Slovak, Romanian and other territories including thenAdriatic port of Fiume, (now part of Italy), there are traces of U forgiveness, reminiscent to Germany's anger about the Ruhr. Bounderies are issues which exist with Mainland China and Japan,mregarding some coastal islands, so the list goes on and on. Territorial integrity is only as viable, as the power to enforce boundaries can guarantee them. it issue now worldwide is particularly this, and this is what put Putin in the hot seat, because it tread on geopolitically ultra sensitive nerves.

I think many of the people of the US and many other countries outside from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told by the media, is largely lie.

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation didn't last 500 years, as you said, but 1000 years - exactly from 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars). And b.t.w., Obe, Metternich was not Austrian but German, he was born in Koblenz; but that doesn't matter very much because Austria had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945 as you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was born in Braunau (Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the Austrians have been confusing Metternich with Hitler and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although the reverse is true.

There were more than one attempt in the European history to form an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first step. The EU we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.

Arminius wrote:Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn't work well. So it has to be reformed - SOON - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?

What the German government started at that time was almost the same that Europe got later, after the two world wars, but it was just the beginnig of the First World War that destroyed this European Union, as if there were interests to prevent it (and such interests existed, especially in England).

The German Hanse or other Städtebünde (associations of cities in Germany and Italy) were the first attempts of creating something like an European Union.

The project of an European Union has always had proponents and opponents. The last powerful European opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no possibility for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent, and - of course - the most powerful rival of the British Empire. The profiteer of the rivalry between the British and the German Empire was the USA - that is the reason why the Dollar Empire could be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent is the USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with the USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the NATO is important also for Europe; but again: I don't want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don't want the hierarchical structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change it from an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military union.

Arminius wrote:The NATO must be terminated because, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies. Do you agree?

Not really. They are way too intermeshed. And the corporations/financial institutions running them are buddies if not, often, the same. Not that this makes for an argument for nato.

They are only as long "buddies" as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same. I remind you of one bankruptcy example that happened in 2008: the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (|=>). There are no real "buddies". In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.

The main beneficiary of a war is almost always the same who started it.

Who was the main beneficiary of the two world wars?

Who will be the main beneficiary of the third world war?

The same.

The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {|=>|=>}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire. Now the United States have again extreme debt, so ....

Arminius wrote:They are only as long "buddies" as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same. I remind you of one bankruptcy example that happened in 2008: the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (|=>). There are no real "buddies". In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.

Yes, but those people want the set up to be such that their class is given the greatest concentrated power and that life is harsh for everyone else. They are not nice people. They are psychopaths, but they want the world to move in a similar direction. They want privitization of everything, all of them. They want transnational organizations like the WTO, say, or IMF, or the new pacific states trade thingy, to have the power to override governments. They want the finance sector as unregulated as possible. And so on. So while they snarl at each other like the reptile brain driven people they are, they work together all the time. They want a grey, destroyed, desperate for most, highly controlled world and together they work towards this. Many people do not realize that they are working for this agenda. Most do not realize it.

The main beneficiary of a war is almost always the same who started it.

Who was the main beneficiary of the two world wars?

Who will be the main beneficiary of the third world war?

The same.

The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {|=>|=>}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire. Now the United States have again extreme debt, so ....

You have a cynical position, but I actually think there might be worse motives for heading towards WW3.

Arminius wrote:They are only as long "buddies" as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same. I remind you of one bankruptcy example that happened in 2008: the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (|=>). There are no real "buddies". In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.

Yes, but those people want the set up to be such that their class is given the greatest concentrated power and that life is harsh for everyone else. They are not nice people. They are psychopaths, but they want the world to move in a similar direction.

And they have a cynical position.

Moreno wrote:They want privitization of everything, all of them. They want transnational organizations like the WTO, say, or IMF, or the new pacific states trade thingy, to have the power to override governments. They want the finance sector as unregulated as possible. And so on.

All that is known, yes.

Moreno wrote:So while they snarl at each other like the reptile brain driven people they are, they work together all the time. They want a grey, destroyed, desperate for most, highly controlled world and together they work towards this. Many people do not realize that they are working for this agenda. Most do not realize it.

The main beneficiary of a war is almost always the same who started it.

Who was the main beneficiary of the two world wars?

Who will be the main beneficiary of the third world war?

The same.

The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {|=>|=>}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire. Now the United States have again extreme debt, so ....

You have a cynical position ....

The cynical position is on the side of the the beneficiaries and especially of the the main beneficiaries of the wars; so they have a cynical position (see above), the most cynical position ever, Moreno.

Which motives do you mean? The main motive is always power (might; because of always having a will to might and a will to night), and that means: control - by (for example) divide et imperea, panem et circenses, cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism, fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail, extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so on ....

Last edited by Arminius on Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.